Hello everybody,
I am taking a look at STP features, in
particular the policy stuff, and suddenly began wondering if STP was
using some sort of meta-model for policies in the same spirit as it uses
the intermediate metamodel.

It may be interesting to model policies instead of just editing (WS-)
policy documents. WS-Policy documents (and perhaps some other policy
description mechanisms) can then be generated from such policy models.
This could make the policy framework future proof, if a different
standard arises for describing policies.

I found a discussion on "Policy Data Model" in http://wiki.eclipse.org/Policy_Framework_in_STP which shares this idea,
but no further documentation. It is not clear if a decision has been
made on this issue, but seems that for now xml instances of WS-Policy is
the only policy description supported. Is such data model a fact, a
future plan, or neither?, and in the case it is, is there any
documentation describing it?.

Juan Pedro Silva wrote:
> I am taking a look at STP features, in
> particular the policy stuff, and suddenly began wondering if STP was
> using some sort of meta-model for policies in the same spirit as it uses
> the intermediate metamodel.

I've long considered that it would be a good idea to include
such a metamodel in the intermediate metamodel - basically
to enhance it with policy-related entities. Then it would be
a more complete thing. It's possible to represent policies
given the existing structures in IM, but it's not as clear as
have policy entities as first class model participants.

Short answer to your question is - we haven't gone much
distance down that road, above and beyond the basic
internal models that are kept by the editors, but I think
it's fair to say we are open to ideas in this space.

Could you maybe give a little more detail, or examples
of what you had in mind?

Hi Oisin, apologies accepted.. ;-)
Sorry it took me so long to get back this time, as I thought this one
wouldn't be answered.

Thanks for your answer. I will do some research this week on available
generic metamodels for representing policies. If I come across something
interesting (a standardization process ideally, anything meaningful
there is no such thing) I'll get back and propose something.

Thanks again, and best regards,
Juan Pedro

Oisin Hurley escribió:
> Hi Juan,
>
> Juan Pedro Silva wrote:
>> I am taking a look at STP features, in
>> particular the policy stuff, and suddenly began wondering if STP was
>> using some sort of meta-model for policies in the same spirit as it
>> uses the intermediate metamodel.
>
> I've long considered that it would be a good idea to include such a
> metamodel in the intermediate metamodel - basically
> to enhance it with policy-related entities. Then it would be a more
> complete thing. It's possible to represent policies given the existing
> structures in IM, but it's not as clear as have policy entities as
> first class model participants.
>
> Short answer to your question is - we haven't gone much
> distance down that road, above and beyond the basic internal models
> that are kept by the editors, but I think
> it's fair to say we are open to ideas in this space.
>
> Could you maybe give a little more detail, or examples
> of what you had in mind?
>
> best regards
> Oisin
>
> p.s. apologies for my tardiness in replying - I've been spending my
> time getting the Galileo contributions ready!
>

Hi everybody, I'm back to report my findings on this one.
There are numerous "policy metamodels" ([1],[2],[3], among others), some
more generic than others, some more specific. Nonetheless, there is no
such thing as a standard metamodel, for what I have found so far. On the
other hand, there are also plenty of policy languages available nowadays
(a survey was published in [4] some time ago, [5] enumerates on security
policy languages only) in which to express policies, and those could be
abstracted into one common metamodel.

In my humble opinion, the closest thing to an standard metamodel for
Policy should be the Policy Package from the CBDI-SAE Meta Model for SOA
Version 2.0. The metamodel itself has been tested and reviewed by
industry, an has been proposed to the OMG. SOAML, the OMG future
standard, does not address Policy, regretfully. I would suggest you
consider using this part of the metamodel as a base for a Policy
intermediate model.

I hope this adds to the discussion of the need or not of such metamodel
in STP.
Best regards,
Juan Pedro

Juan Pedro Silva escribió:
> Hi Oisin, apologies accepted.. ;-)
> Sorry it took me so long to get back this time, as I thought this one
> wouldn't be answered.
>
> Thanks for your answer. I will do some research this week on available
> generic metamodels for representing policies. If I come across
> something interesting (a standardization process ideally, anything
> meaningful there is no such thing) I'll get back and propose something.
>
> Thanks again, and best regards,
> Juan Pedro
>
> Oisin Hurley escribió:
>> Hi Juan,
>>
>> Juan Pedro Silva wrote:
>>> I am taking a look at STP features, in
>>> particular the policy stuff, and suddenly began wondering if STP was
>>> using some sort of meta-model for policies in the same spirit as it
>>> uses the intermediate metamodel.
>>
>> I've long considered that it would be a good idea to include such a
>> metamodel in the intermediate metamodel - basically
>> to enhance it with policy-related entities. Then it would be a more
>> complete thing. It's possible to represent policies given the
>> existing structures in IM, but it's not as clear as have policy
>> entities as first class model participants.
>>
>> Short answer to your question is - we haven't gone much
>> distance down that road, above and beyond the basic internal models
>> that are kept by the editors, but I think
>> it's fair to say we are open to ideas in this space.
>>
>> Could you maybe give a little more detail, or examples
>> of what you had in mind?
>>
>> best regards
>> Oisin
>>
>> p.s. apologies for my tardiness in replying - I've been spending my
>> time getting the Galileo contributions ready!
>>

Juan Pedro Silva wrote:
> I am taking a look at STP features, in
> particular the policy stuff, and suddenly began wondering if STP was
> using some sort of meta-model for policies in the same spirit as it uses
> the intermediate metamodel.

I've long considered that it would be a good idea to include
such a metamodel in the intermediate metamodel - basically
to enhance it with policy-related entities. Then it would be
a more complete thing. It's possible to represent policies
given the existing structures in IM, but it's not as clear as
have policy entities as first class model participants.

Short answer to your question is - we haven't gone much
distance down that road, above and beyond the basic
internal models that are kept by the editors, but I think
it's fair to say we are open to ideas in this space.

Could you maybe give a little more detail, or examples
of what you had in mind?

Hi Oisin, apologies accepted.. ;-)
Sorry it took me so long to get back this time, as I thought this one
wouldn't be answered.

Thanks for your answer. I will do some research this week on available
generic metamodels for representing policies. If I come across something
interesting (a standardization process ideally, anything meaningful
there is no such thing) I'll get back and propose something.

Thanks again, and best regards,
Juan Pedro

Oisin Hurley escribió:
> Hi Juan,
>
> Juan Pedro Silva wrote:
>> I am taking a look at STP features, in
>> particular the policy stuff, and suddenly began wondering if STP was
>> using some sort of meta-model for policies in the same spirit as it
>> uses the intermediate metamodel.
>
> I've long considered that it would be a good idea to include such a
> metamodel in the intermediate metamodel - basically
> to enhance it with policy-related entities. Then it would be a more
> complete thing. It's possible to represent policies given the existing
> structures in IM, but it's not as clear as have policy entities as
> first class model participants.
>
> Short answer to your question is - we haven't gone much
> distance down that road, above and beyond the basic internal models
> that are kept by the editors, but I think
> it's fair to say we are open to ideas in this space.
>
> Could you maybe give a little more detail, or examples
> of what you had in mind?
>
> best regards
> Oisin
>
> p.s. apologies for my tardiness in replying - I've been spending my
> time getting the Galileo contributions ready!
>

Hi everybody, I'm back to report my findings on this one.
There are numerous "policy metamodels" ([1],[2],[3], among others), some
more generic than others, some more specific. Nonetheless, there is no
such thing as a standard metamodel, for what I have found so far. On the
other hand, there are also plenty of policy languages available nowadays
(a survey was published in [4] some time ago, [5] enumerates on security
policy languages only) in which to express policies, and those could be
abstracted into one common metamodel.

In my humble opinion, the closest thing to an standard metamodel for
Policy should be the Policy Package from the CBDI-SAE Meta Model for SOA
Version 2.0. The metamodel itself has been tested and reviewed by
industry, an has been proposed to the OMG. SOAML, the OMG future
standard, does not address Policy, regretfully. I would suggest you
consider using this part of the metamodel as a base for a Policy
intermediate model.

I hope this adds to the discussion of the need or not of such metamodel
in STP.
Best regards,
Juan Pedro

Juan Pedro Silva escribió:
> Hi Oisin, apologies accepted.. ;-)
> Sorry it took me so long to get back this time, as I thought this one
> wouldn't be answered.
>
> Thanks for your answer. I will do some research this week on available
> generic metamodels for representing policies. If I come across
> something interesting (a standardization process ideally, anything
> meaningful there is no such thing) I'll get back and propose something.
>
> Thanks again, and best regards,
> Juan Pedro
>
> Oisin Hurley escribió:
>> Hi Juan,
>>
>> Juan Pedro Silva wrote:
>>> I am taking a look at STP features, in
>>> particular the policy stuff, and suddenly began wondering if STP was
>>> using some sort of meta-model for policies in the same spirit as it
>>> uses the intermediate metamodel.
>>
>> I've long considered that it would be a good idea to include such a
>> metamodel in the intermediate metamodel - basically
>> to enhance it with policy-related entities. Then it would be a more
>> complete thing. It's possible to represent policies given the
>> existing structures in IM, but it's not as clear as have policy
>> entities as first class model participants.
>>
>> Short answer to your question is - we haven't gone much
>> distance down that road, above and beyond the basic internal models
>> that are kept by the editors, but I think
>> it's fair to say we are open to ideas in this space.
>>
>> Could you maybe give a little more detail, or examples
>> of what you had in mind?
>>
>> best regards
>> Oisin
>>
>> p.s. apologies for my tardiness in replying - I've been spending my
>> time getting the Galileo contributions ready!
>>